LETTERS; The Primary, Upon Further Dissection

Published: January 11, 2008

Like the women interviewed, I've been pained by the criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Neither the pitch of Mrs. Clinton's voice nor her supposed lifelong ambition to be president would be issues if she were a man.

I am one of those younger women ''who have grown up in a world of greater parity,'' but I could never distance myself from Mrs. Clinton's struggles. She is blazing the trail for us. She has endured for 30-plus years in public life, and she has the courage to put herself out there for the judgment of voters in a way that few women have done before. That means something to me. That inspires me. Soojin Kim

Seattle, Jan. 10, 2008

To the Editor:

You quote Julie Dinnerstein, 39, as saying she would not vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton because her struggles are ''not those of my generation of women.'' If the women of Senator Clinton's generation had not taken on those struggles, Ms. Dinnerstein's generation would have had to live with the status quo or taken on those struggles. It is gratuitous to toss away that struggle.

The response to Senator Clinton's hair, clothing and timbre of her voice, and constant carping by media about how she demonstrates her strength, rather boldly indicate that the struggle is not over. Virginia Giordano

New York, Jan. 10, 2008

To the Editor:

I'm dismayed to see women voters choose Hillary Rodham Clinton because of a desire to break through ''the highest and hardest glass ceiling.'' If you wish to use your vote to counter inequality (and I'm not advocating this), then surely you must recognize that this is an opportunity for Barack Obama to break the same glass ceiling. You must also recognize that slavery was a greater injustice than disparate treatment of women.

Until Senator Clinton played the gender card at several opportunities after Iowa, this race had been so beautifully run above-board, with two viable candidates duking it out on their merits, with little or no subtext of ''my class is more oppressed than your class.'' I'd like to see the voters demand that we get back to this fight. Stephanie J. James

Minneapolis, Jan. 10, 2008

To the Editor:

I find it ironic that so many female voters in New Hampshire apparently supported Hillary Rodham Clinton mainly because she's a woman. Feminism has long held that it's not right for a man to be hired, admitted to college or elected just because he's a man. So why should feminists vote for Mrs. Clinton just because she's a woman?

If we want people to be judged on their own merits, we have to start with our own choices. Caroline Abels

Boston, Jan. 10, 2008

To the Editor:

Misogyny is not simply a cultural phenomenon; it's also a political tool. The cult of hatred the right wing has created with regard to Hillary Rodham Clinton is in direct proportion to the substantial threat she poses at the ballot box. Case in point: calling her proposal for universal health care coverage ''Hillary care'' shifts the focus from the policy's merits to her character, which has been smeared relentlessly for so many years.

Surprisingly, Senator Clinton is quite popular here in conservative upstate New York, where talk radio, which dominates the AM dial, demonizes her incessantly. Apparently, this outpouring of Clinton hatred has offended many women and more than a few men in these rural parts, and that is a hopeful sign.

Michael Blaine

Jefferson, N.Y., Jan. 10, 2008

To the Editor:

Thank you for publishing Andrew Kohut's excellent commentary on why the polls predicted an Obama victory in New Hampshire (''Getting It Wrong,'' Op-Ed, Jan. 10). If he is right that the biggest reason may have been that ''less well-educated white people'' who ''do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews,'' this has very serious implications for the future of telephone polling.

Refusal rates in phone surveys have been increasing remorselessly for 30 years. For a long time we have been worried that lower response rates would bias our telephone poll results, with the near certainty that they would eventually do so. New Hampshire may be a sign that tougher times lie ahead for pollsters. Humphrey Taylor

Chairman, The Harris Poll

Harris Interactive

New York, Jan. 10, 2008

To the Editor:

Andrew Kohut is correct that the failure of pollsters to predict Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire lies not in a failure in methodology but in the fact that different kinds of people agree to answer pollsters' questions. He is probably correct that these ''missed'' people are largely lower income, less educated whites. He then concludes that untapped white responders don't favor blacks? Why assume anything? In this instance, perhaps working-class people don't favor men! Perhaps they know the real deal when they see it. Perhaps they love Barack Obama and they think that Mrs. Clinton has ''grit'' like them.

This week we saw a woman pressed smack up against the glass ceiling with the prospect of drowning in a sea of bias. Mr. Kohut should go back to the drawing board. Nancy F. McKenzie